Crosswords0 min ago
Should Britain First Use Lee Rigby's Name In Their Campaigns?
Lee Rigby's family have repeatedly asked Britain First not to use their son's name in their broadcast and online materials, but they have ignored this.
As Lee is a national public figure, are BF right to go ahead and include references to him - or should they take into account the wishes of his family?
http://
As Lee is a national public figure, are BF right to go ahead and include references to him - or should they take into account the wishes of his family?
http://
Answers
jno - //I can't see why not. Rigby was a grown man. At some point, parents cease to have proprietoria
09:05 Thu 21st Apr 2016
viv41 - //"Please give me some definite proof why I should hate them so much, in fact hate them more than the ones they are protesting against?"
Good question aog. //
It is not possible to offer proof of why anyone should possess an emotional reaction - evidence may be available, but not proof, so it is not a good question because it cannot be answered.
Good question aog. //
It is not possible to offer proof of why anyone should possess an emotional reaction - evidence may be available, but not proof, so it is not a good question because it cannot be answered.
andy-hughes
/// It is not possible to offer proof of why anyone should possess an emotional reaction - evidence may be available, but not proof, so it is not a good question because it cannot be answered. ///
And that is exactly why it is only an 'emotionality action' thanks for admitting that Andy.
/// evidence may be available, but not
proof, ///
So in your reasoning you are prepared to victimised a group especially when there is no proof except an emotionality reaction.
After reading many of your posts over the years, I would have though your view of classing a person or group as guilty even though there is no proof.
At least there is plenty of proof for Britain First or any other such group's reaction.
/// It is not possible to offer proof of why anyone should possess an emotional reaction - evidence may be available, but not proof, so it is not a good question because it cannot be answered. ///
And that is exactly why it is only an 'emotionality action' thanks for admitting that Andy.
/// evidence may be available, but not
proof, ///
So in your reasoning you are prepared to victimised a group especially when there is no proof except an emotionality reaction.
After reading many of your posts over the years, I would have though your view of classing a person or group as guilty even though there is no proof.
At least there is plenty of proof for Britain First or any other such group's reaction.
AOG
I wasn't making a value judgement. I was simply answering your question "What about far-left groups, should we also give them such pejorative names?"
The fact is, Far Left groups are given pejorative names.
You have said that Lee Rigby's family have asked 'ALL' political parties not to use his name in their campaigns.
That being the case, we should ask, if the other parties have honoured their wishes, why don't BF?
I wasn't making a value judgement. I was simply answering your question "What about far-left groups, should we also give them such pejorative names?"
The fact is, Far Left groups are given pejorative names.
You have said that Lee Rigby's family have asked 'ALL' political parties not to use his name in their campaigns.
That being the case, we should ask, if the other parties have honoured their wishes, why don't BF?
In answer to the question:
"Please give me some definite proof why I should hate them so much, in fact hate them more than the ones they are protesting against?"
Did someone tell you who to hate, or did someone state that they hate them?
Who is ordered whom to hate who?
(Before anyone pulls me up on this, I'm pretty sure I've got my whos and whoms in the right place).
"Please give me some definite proof why I should hate them so much, in fact hate them more than the ones they are protesting against?"
Did someone tell you who to hate, or did someone state that they hate them?
Who is ordered whom to hate who?
(Before anyone pulls me up on this, I'm pretty sure I've got my whos and whoms in the right place).
viv41
You wrote:
[i[BF don't want to kill or maim me or terrorise me unlike islamic terrorists. You're welcome aog.[i]
If your baseline for judging a group centres on their willingness (or otherwise) to kill or maim you, then that leaves an awful lot of groups who could potentially pass muster with you.
Analogy - "Yes, that fella broke into my house, stole my telly, phone and jewellery, but at least he didn't kill me and my family."
You wrote:
[i[BF don't want to kill or maim me or terrorise me unlike islamic terrorists. You're welcome aog.[i]
If your baseline for judging a group centres on their willingness (or otherwise) to kill or maim you, then that leaves an awful lot of groups who could potentially pass muster with you.
Analogy - "Yes, that fella broke into my house, stole my telly, phone and jewellery, but at least he didn't kill me and my family."
/// If your baseline for judging a group centres on their willingness (or otherwise) to kill or maim you, then that leaves an awful lot of groups who could potentially pass muster with you. ///
/// Analogy - "Yes, that fella broke into my house, stole my telly, phone and jewellery, but at least he didn't kill me and my
family." ///
I think you will find that both Viv and myself are referring to actual major crimes committed under the name of Islam, but if need be I am sure we could come up with lesser crimes.
Your Analogy: that is why a lesser sentence is given for the less serious crimes.
/// Analogy - "Yes, that fella broke into my house, stole my telly, phone and jewellery, but at least he didn't kill me and my
family." ///
I think you will find that both Viv and myself are referring to actual major crimes committed under the name of Islam, but if need be I am sure we could come up with lesser crimes.
Your Analogy: that is why a lesser sentence is given for the less serious crimes.
SP, //By using it against the wishes of his family.//
That’s a lack of respect for the family’s wishes – but it isn’t misappropriation. I don’t think they’ve lied about what happened to Lee Rigby. That would be misappropriation. Mikey, take note.
andy-hughes, // It is not possible to offer proof of why anyone should possess an emotional reaction//
I’m not sure why you consider hatred of one group or another to be an emotional reaction. An opinion is often formed through reason. For example, I have an intense dislike of Islamic madmen who blow people to smithereens, but that dislike doesn’t emanate from emotion – it has arisen because I abhor what they do. No emotion involved in that decision.
That’s a lack of respect for the family’s wishes – but it isn’t misappropriation. I don’t think they’ve lied about what happened to Lee Rigby. That would be misappropriation. Mikey, take note.
andy-hughes, // It is not possible to offer proof of why anyone should possess an emotional reaction//
I’m not sure why you consider hatred of one group or another to be an emotional reaction. An opinion is often formed through reason. For example, I have an intense dislike of Islamic madmen who blow people to smithereens, but that dislike doesn’t emanate from emotion – it has arisen because I abhor what they do. No emotion involved in that decision.
andy, I agree, I think they are in the wrong; nonetheless, there are no moral certainties, and if doing what they've done is ok by their own standards, then I can't complain. His family may well protest, but when a person becomes public property (even totally involuntarily, as in Rigby's case), others have something invested in him too.
Voters can make up their own minds.
Voters can make up their own minds.
This from April 2014, apparently then it was the fault of the The Electoral Commission who apologised and promised that it never happens again.
http://
http://
Naomi - //I’m not sure why you consider hatred of one group or another to be an emotional reaction. An opinion is often formed through reason. For example, I have an intense dislike of Islamic madmen who blow people to smithereens, but that dislike doesn’t emanate from emotion – it has arisen because I abhor what they do. No emotion involved in that decision. //
I think this is a matter of semantics.
I believe that you do feel an emotion when you form those opinions, I do not think that once can exist without informing the other.
I think this is a matter of semantics.
I believe that you do feel an emotion when you form those opinions, I do not think that once can exist without informing the other.
jno - //andy, I agree, I think they are in the wrong; nonetheless, there are no moral certainties, and if doing what they've done is ok by their own standards, then I can't complain. His family may well protest, but when a person becomes public property (even totally involuntarily, as in Rigby's case), others have something invested in him too. //
A fair point, but I would argue that actions within an individual moral code do not mean that objections cannot reasonably be raised by people whose moral code differs - that is part of life in a free society - they have a legal, of not moral right to do it, and the majority of us on here have the same rights to object to it.
A fair point, but I would argue that actions within an individual moral code do not mean that objections cannot reasonably be raised by people whose moral code differs - that is part of life in a free society - they have a legal, of not moral right to do it, and the majority of us on here have the same rights to object to it.
Latest Posts
News9 mins ago
A Tory Thank You To Pensioner's
News65 mins ago
What Store Did Cliff Richard Open In...
Music71 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.